DIP 1019--Named Arguments Lite--Community Review Round 2

[12345swordy]

On Thursday, 6 June 2019 at 22:19:46 UTC, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> You missed the point.

No, you are the one who is missing the point here. Point being is 
that fix breakage cause by name change is quick, simple and easy. 
The tools are advance enough for quick fixes.

>  There are not that many functions that will benefit from using 
> named parameters.

Says who!? You? Readability matters a lot to me. I hate C++, 
because it is so bad at readability.

> However, if you make it "opt-in", then you don't have to pay 
> that high cost.

Sorry I don't believe that it is a "high cost". Tools are quite 
good enough to compensate the change.

>>> Far to high of a cost just to allow some cases to be more 
>>> readable.
>>
>> I strongly reject this claim, due to the lack to evidence. I 
>> encounter no apocalypse scenario when it comes to unable to 
>> named arguments in the C# community which you can not opt it 
>> out.
>>
>
> It's the same argument for having private fields in classes and 
> structs.

No, they are not the same thing! Encapsulation involves 
information hiding, and confidentiality. It makes no sense to 
hide the names of the function arguments when exposed to the 
public.


I am not going to repeat of what I said months ago regarding 
this. I have said my arguments on why making it opt-in is a 
terrible idea. Not going to rehash it again.

Alex